Finland Certifies Election, Despite 2% Of Votes Lost Due To Computer Issues

from the what's-1%-here-or-there? dept

In the latest sad saga concerning e-voting mishaps, it appears that Finland's courts have agreed to certify a recent election, despite approximately 2% of the votes not being counted (found via Slashdot). Also, there were additional problems as it's been discovered that despite the requirement for an "anonymous election" the voting software stored identifying information, along with how each voter voted. Oops. Once again, we're left wondering why various governments keep trusting such questionable equipment?

Finland's elections

The e-voting was experimented in 3 Finnish municipalities and the amount of lost votes was 232.
Maybe the uncounted votes would have changed the local councils by one person but very probably would not have affected the seats for the parties.
Also I think the equipment is not the only thing to blame. People can't use them!

Re:

It seems we are going to just have to wait till the older generation is replaced with younger people that know technology, the good and the bad of it.

Except a lot of them just don't care. As long as they've got a party to go to this weekend, they're happy. I'm surprised at the number of commenters over on slashdot that see nothing wrong with these kind of election results.

What was the difference in resulting votes between the parties? If there was a 1 or 2% difference, then there's room for concern and this is a major controversy. If one party thrashed the other by an 18% margin, I can see why the Finn aren't worried about this specific result, though I hope it does still raise serious questions before they're used again.

Re: Finland's elections @ Leena

Surely the fact that people can't use a computer system which has replaced a manual system that almost anyone can use means that the system is at fault. That's the principle tenet of system design - it has to be usable...

... perhaps because they know something we don't about how they might make use of the equipment and its vagaries for their own ends?

Naa, that's my suspicion too - really. How can a company that makes ATM's that almost never, ever miscount cash - not be able to count votes properly? At least in a lot of cases, that is true.

It seems that the system required the voter to insert a smart card to identify the voter, type in their selected candidate number, then press "ok", check the candidate details on the screen, and then press "ok" again. Some voters did not press "ok" for the second time, but instead removed their smart card from the voting terminal prematurely, causing their ballots not to be cast.

On an ATM for instance - on the last part; it will ask you to confirm too - but it's nice and clear.